Talk:Project Sponsorship

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Answer 2)
(→‎Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos": new section)
 
Line 101: Line 101:
 
===Answer 7===
 
===Answer 7===
 
I would summarise the content of each reference.
 
I would summarise the content of each reference.
 +
 +
== Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos" ==
 +
 +
===Question 1 · TEXT===
 +
'''Quality of the summary:'''
 +
 +
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 1===
 +
Very definition oriented, I would add some further explanations or practical approaches.
 +
 +
 +
===Question 2 · TEXT===
 +
'''Structure and logic of the article:'''
 +
 +
Is the argument clear?  Yes
 +
 +
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes
 +
 +
Does one part build upon the other? Yes
 +
 +
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 2===
 +
Well established, I would suggest one or two more topics added to complete the profile of project sponsorship.
 +
 +
===Question 3 · TEXT===
 +
'''Grammar and style:'''
 +
 +
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes
 +
 +
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 3===
 +
Broad vocabulary, maybe shorten some sentences.
 +
 +
 +
===Question 4 · TEXT===
 +
'''Figures and tables:'''
 +
 +
Are figures and tables clear? yes
 +
 +
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 4===
 +
Figures missing.
 +
 +
 +
===Question 5 · TEXT===
 +
'''Interest and relevance:'''
 +
 +
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? yes
 +
 +
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?  yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 5===
 +
-
 +
 +
===Question 6 · TEXT===
 +
'''Depth of treatment:'''
 +
 +
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes
 +
 +
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 6===
 +
Some more focus on the surroundings of the sponsor management and its relation to program management.
 +
 +
===Question 7 · TEXT===
 +
'''Annotated bibliography:'''
 +
 +
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes
 +
 +
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No
 +
 +
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 7===
 +
References might need description and italic font in the appropriate places.

Latest revision as of 23:33, 25 February 2019

Contents

[edit] Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language The text is good. However, it can be more concise and coherent.
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good.
Article purpose explanation This needs to be elaborated.
Relevance to curriculum Relevant
References Remember to make correct references (websites). Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Edoardo Braccini

[edit] Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Mostly

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 1

I would outline the purpose of the article and I would introduce a brief definition of project sponsorship to better understand the following.

[edit] Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes

Is there a logical flow to the article? Mostly

Does one part build upon the other? Mostly

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 2

I would suggest to make the article more fluent in contents.

[edit] Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 3

I would suggest to make some sentences shorter, in order to make easier the understanding.

[edit] Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 4

I would add some figures to support the ideas.

[edit] Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? yes

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 5

I would develop the missing chapter and I would add the limitation of project sponsorship.

[edit] Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 6

I would add some tools that are used in dealing with project sponsorship

[edit] Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? yes

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? no

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 7

I would summarise the content of each reference.

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos"

[edit] Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 1

Very definition oriented, I would add some further explanations or practical approaches.


[edit] Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes

Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

Does one part build upon the other? Yes

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 2

Well established, I would suggest one or two more topics added to complete the profile of project sponsorship.

[edit] Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 3

Broad vocabulary, maybe shorten some sentences.


[edit] Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? yes

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 4

Figures missing.


[edit] Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? yes

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 5

-

[edit] Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 6

Some more focus on the surroundings of the sponsor management and its relation to program management.

[edit] Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 7

References might need description and italic font in the appropriate places.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Project_Sponsorship&oldid=67080"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox